2018-11-24

Ms. Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Chair, I would also like to ask the minister this. Is she aware that the employees who work for Purolator, which is a part of Canada Post, make $5 more per hour than CUPW members for doing essentially the same work? Two months ago they were granted a 3% wage increase, yet Canada Post is waffling and refusing to bargain with respect to the 2.9% requested by CUPW. Does the minister feel that is acceptable?
Hon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I was just checking with my officials because I recalled that the Purolator contract was one of the first contracts that, in my term as Minister of Labour, was successfully concluded through a collective bargaining process. That was an agreement that was negotiated by the members of that union with their employer. This is exactly how the collective bargaining process should work.
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Chair, I wonder if the minister is aware that under USMCA, Canadians ordering packages shipped from the U.S. and Mexico by private couriers could receive a $40 discount with respect to duty on the goods. However, that is only if they use private couriers. The same exemption is not available to Canada Post. Does the minister condone this imbalance regarding private couriers and Canada Post? Is she prepared to ask her government to hold up signing the USMCA until this unfair practice is rectified?
Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I am really pleased to get this question from the member opposite, because one of the things that makes the USMCA so progressive is the fully enforceable chapter on labour. It has been endorsed by Canadian and international labour organizations that say that this is in fact the most progressive labour chapter in the history of trade agreements. I would say that we care so much about the rights of labour that we insisted on a fully enforceable labour chapter as part of the USMCA. That is something that organized labour had been calling for, worked with us so carefully to craft, and stood with us, side by side, as we negotiated that agreement.
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Chair, unfortunately this agreement that the minister thinks is so wonderful simply sets up committees. It does not mean that labour relations and labour practices are going to be safe and secure and that Canadian workers are going to be protected.
Finally, section 9 of the back-to-work legislation that we have before us reads that, “the Minister must refer to the mediator-arbitrator all matters relating to the amendment or revision of each collective agreement that are, at the time of the appointment, in dispute between the parties.”
The problem is that section 9 provides the minister with unilateral power to determine the matters in dispute and the scope of the mediator-arbitrator's mandate.
Is this not of concern? Is the minister prepared to amend this section to provide for fair and transparent processes to determine the matters in dispute?
Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I assure the member opposite that I will refer all outstanding issues.
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Chair, my last question to the minister is in light of the response of the workers of Canada Post, the human beings who are on the street and deliver the mail and the packages. Is the minister prepared to meet with them and hear out their concerns? It seems to me that Canada Post is not listening very well at all.
Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, as a matter of fact my constituency office right now is occupied by Canada Post workers. There are about 10 people sitting and working with my staff. My staff has been communicating with me about their concerns. I certainly have met many times with union officials, with the president of the union and with many of the members of the negotiating team. 
I will continue to make myself available as a member of Parliament to any constituency member or any individual in this country who wants to speak with me.
The Chair: Resuming debate, the hon. member for Whitby. I will let the hon. member know there are about eight minutes remaining in the time provided.
Mrs. Celina Caesar-Chavannes (Whitby, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the minister for her interventions thus far. 
Over the past few weeks, many people from Whitby have reached out to me with their concerns about the strike. The Government of Canada is committed to free collective bargaining. Introducing back-to-work legislation is sometimes necessary in order to meet the needs of Canadians. I would like to start off by reiterating that, as the minister has said many times, we are committed to a free collective bargaining process as the basis for a sound industrial relationship.
A lot of work has been done over the last year to ensure that we as a government have been committed and fair in providing resources to both parties. Could the minister clarify to people in Whitby, and other Canadians, the work that has been done so far to ensure that this has come to an agreement that would be amenable to Canadians?
Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, the member is right to point out that we have worked extremely hard to help this collective bargaining process move forward to reach a collective agreement.
First of all, about a year ago we appointed federal mediators through a federal mediation service to work with the two parties to begin early negotiations at my urging. Early and often is what I often tell parties who are entering into that process. 
They continued to work with federal mediation services but when it was clear that they had reached an impasse, I appointed a special mediator to work with the parties to see if a new set of eyes, a fresh perspective, could help them reach a collective agreement. Those talks broke down. I reappointed the special mediator not once, but twice. 
We have talked to the negotiating teams. I have met with both the union and the employer. The Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility has also met with the employer and the union.
We are confident that we have done everything in our power to help these parties negotiate. I would still urge the parties to get a deal. It is not too late.
Celina Caesar-Chavannes: Mr. Chair, with regard to the proposed legislation, we have seen demonstrations here in this House. We know the legislation is providing an extension to the collective agreements and the minister is to appoint a mediator. There are postal workers at the 265 Harwood facility in Whitby, and I am wondering if she could talk to them specifically about what the proposed legislation would offer in order for them to continue what they are rightfully able to do in the collective bargaining agreement.
Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I am pleased to tell the members in Whitby and in fact across the country that we have their interests at heart, as well as the needs of the corporation. That is why we are working in a balanced way. First of all, with the selection of the mediator-arbitrator, the person will have to be agreed upon by both parties. If there is no agreement, then I will seek the guidance of the Canada Industrial Relations Board to appoint a neutral party. That is to intentionally ensure we do not recreate the mistakes of the Harper government, where political appointments were made, where people were found to have conflicts of interest, where it was clearly biased to the government's perspective. We want both parties to feel certain the person is truly unbiased in any way. 
Second, I refer to the guiding principles. I am running out of time, but the health and safety of workers, equal pay for work of equal value and the fair treatment of temporary and part-time employees are all principles which should give the member some comfort that we are acting with their interests at heart, as well as the sustainability of the corporation, which of course also has their interests at heart.
Celina Caesar-Chavannes: Mr. Chair, I am glad the minister talked about the guiding principles, because we did hear in this House about the injuries suffered by workers. I know the guiding principles within this piece of legislation would guide what the mediator does moving forward in order to ensure employees receive equal pay for work of equal value, and that the health and safety of employees are taken into consideration.
I want to mention the NDP's record on this particular issue. The member for London—Fanshawe and the member for Hamilton Centre have, on three occasions, either voted for or were part of a government which voted for back-to-work legislation. We know it is often uncomfortable but it is a necessary step in order to do the work we are asked to do in this place by Canadians. Back-to-work legislation is necessary in order to ensure we are working for the middle class and those working hard to join it.
The member for London—Fanshawe, the member for Hamilton Centre, as well as the member for Vancouver East were part of governments which voted for back-to-work legislation. I am wondering if the minister could speak to the importance of having a responsible government and ensuring we are doing the very important work Canadians have brought us here to do.
Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, the member is right to point out that even NDP governments, under seven premiers, 15 times used back-to-work legislation to end disputes that could not be agreed upon through a collective bargaining process. It is uncomfortable. I will give the NDP members the benefit of the doubt that it was just as uncomfortable for them as it is for me standing here in this House.
Perhaps the Conservatives do not share this belief, but let us say we all profoundly believe that an agreement arrived upon through a collective bargaining process is the strongest agreement, is the best way to maintain positive labour relations in a corporation. That is why I share the member's perspective that it is parties of all stripes that have had to do this. It is something we do not take lightly. That is why we have crafted the legislation with guiding principles that are fair, balanced, and with an arbitrator selection process that is fair and balanced and will support the parties to reach an agreement that will create positive relationships and help the corporation and the union move forward together in a profitable way.
Bruce Stanton: It being 12:14 a.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the committee stage of the bill.
Shall clause 2 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Clause 2 agreed to)
 Shall clause 3 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Clause 3 agreed to)
 Shall clause 4 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Clause 4 agreed to)
 Shall clause 5 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Clause 5 agreed to)
 Shall clause 6 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Clause 6 agreed to)
 Shall clause 7 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Clause 7 agreed to)
 Shall clause 8 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Clause 8 agreed to)
 Shall clause 9 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Clause 9 agreed to)
 Shall clause 10 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Clause 10 agreed to)
 Shall clause 11 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Clause 11 agreed to)
 Shall clause 12 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Clause 12 agreed to)
 Shall clause 13 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Clause 13 agreed to)
 Shall clause 14 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Clause 14 agreed to)
 Shall clause 15 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Clause 15 agreed to)
 Shall clause 16 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division. 
Bruce Stanton: (Clause 16 agreed to)
 Shall clause 1, the short title, carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Short title agreed to)
 Shall the preamble carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Preamble agreed to)
 Shall the title carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Title agreed to)
 Shall the bill carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Bill agreed to)
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, deemed considered in committee of the whole and reported)
Bruce Stanton: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole has considered Bill C-89 and has directed me to report the same without amendment.
Patty Hajdu:  moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  On division.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): (Motion agreed to)
Patty Hajdu:  moved that Bill C-89, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, be read the third time and passed. 
Madam Speaker, let me be clear. Our government is using back-to-work legislation as a last resort. I have said many times that the best deals are reached at the table and that I will always have faith in the collective bargaining process. Having said that, it is clear that in this situation the government had to act, which is a decision I do not take lightly.
For a year, the government has been doing everything possible to support and encourage both sides to reach a deal at the table. We provided conciliation officers, appointed mediators and offered voluntary arbitration. We re-appointed the special mediator in a last-ditch effort to reach a deal, and now we have exhausted all of our options.
Over the last five weeks, Canadians in over 200 communities have seen delays. Small businesses are paying more for shipping, consumers are less and less confident that their packages will arrive, and vulnerable Canadians are worried they will not get their cheques on time. This is a very busy time of year. Businesses are relying on Canada Post in order to have a profitable holiday season, and Canadians need to see as quickly as possible that mail and packages are moving and that they can depend on a reliable and predictable service. 
These work stoppages are having a serious impact on Canadians businesses as well, especially during the busiest time of year for e-commerce. For many Canadian businesses, their busiest time of year is from now until the end of the holiday season. With a parcel backlog that may well go into 2019, Canadians are losing confidence. They are cancelling orders, or they are not ordering at all. It will not be long before we start hearing of small businesses that cannot survive. We can do something to help and we must.
I will tell members about Maureen Lyons, owner of Mo McQueen and Sons. She said: 
 If by the end of the week, by some miracle, things could resume or at least the shopping public's faith in the system of delivery could be restored, I think it would help a great deal. We are as grassroots as it gets. I don't make a ton of money as it is. It is so frustrating. We 're the little guys. And I'm not just a seller ... I'm also trying to find things for my own children for Christmas that I can't get. 
How can we expect Canadians to place orders when they cannot be assured they will receive their packages on time? At the same time, Canada Post has asked its international partners to stop shipments to Canada. What kind of message does it send to Canadian businesses? The holiday season starts this week, and package loads are about to double. We are at a critical moment when inaction on our part would be irresponsible. 
The Retail Council of Canada, believes this situation can be fixed if the strikes are brought to an end without delay. Karl Littler, spokesman for the Retail Council of Canada, says that “It's a matter of averting the crisis before it becomes full-blown”. We need to avert this crisis.
Most of us in the House know someone in our communities who has opened a business selling locally sourced or even handmade products. We do what we can to support these businesses. We want to see them thrive. In fact, I have many such businesses in my riding. Often they are young entrepreneurs with investments from family, and sometimes the only money they have, invested in these businesses and are trying to grow them to support themselves and the local economy while also hiring people in their new businesses. 
Many of these businesses rely on online sales to survive, especially at this time. In fact, the fourth quarter is when many local and family-owned businesses make the majority of their sales. If the strikes are left to continue through the holiday season and sales continue to decline, some of these smaller businesses could close. 
Entrepreneurs who sell through the eBay, Etsy and Amazon platforms already have razor-thin margins. With the higher cost of shipping through courier companies, how can they turn a profit? For rural businesses where Canada Post is typically the only parcel delivery service available, there is no alternative. They are in a very tough spot, one that I would say is precarious. 
According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, two-thirds of the small and medium-sized enterprises surveyed have said they are being affected by the rotating strikes at Canada Post. This is costing them on average almost $3,000 in additional costs. Is it any wonder that the negative effects of these ongoing strikes are also jeopardizing Canada's reputation as a reliable market for commerce and trade?
 E-commerce is a significant source of economic growth in Canada. In 2018, Canadians are doing much more of their shopping online compared with the 2011 strike.
According to Statistics Canada, Internet-based sales from all retailers rose 31% to $15.7 billion in 2017, and up to 40% of these sales took place in the fourth quarter, which the strike is currently impacting. These negative impacts on this business to date will only continue to worsen. We did not want it to come to this, but in light of these consequences, we see no alternative.
While our government is aware of the serious negative impacts these strikes are having across the country for businesses and everyday Canadians, we must take into account as well Canada's vulnerable and remote populations. Older Canadians, persons with disabilities, low-income earners, as well as Canadians living in rural, remote and northern areas, all of these groups rely on physical mail delivery and are disproportionately negatively impacted by extended work stoppages.
Thirty per cent of our population, almost nine million Canadians, live in rural and remote areas, often with unreliable Internet. What does a disruption mean to them? Not only does it mean no parcels, it means no access to bills, statements, government services, personal communications and any other mail they require and depend on. For them, the costs of alternatives to Canada Post are very high and for many, out of reach.
 In some remote northern areas, where residents rely on mail and parcel delivery more than anywhere else in Canada, there are simply no alternatives to Canada Post.
Jim Danahy, CEO of CustomerLAB, said:
 Canada is the second biggest land mass in the world and while most of our population is in the southern portions of the country, we have people in every corner, in very remote locations. 
 We have Indigenous population is very small and sometimes isolated communities that you can only reach by water or by air. So, in those cases, the local economies can be hit quite significantly 
Beverley Mitchell wrote to the Toronto Star. She said:
 While mail disruption is an inconvenience to many of us living in Canada, it is an impossible situation for those in remote fly-in communities in Northern Canada. 
 Unlike other Canadians who have options of private courier services, those living in these regions must rely on Canada Post for all of their deliveries. 
 Through a newly formed non-profit organization...I am personally involved in sending much-needed food to shelters and soup kitchens; warm clothing to the homeless, poor and elderly; school supplies and food to daycares... 
We need to take action now. It is not just our small businesses that are suffering. Our e-commerce business and in fact many community members who rely on Canada Post are suffering as well.
These vulnerable Canadians are not worrying about their online shopping; they are worrying about covering their basics, like food and clothing. We must act on their behalf.
This is absolutely a last resort, but we know we must act in the best interests of Canadians and Canadian businesses. Having exhausted all other possibilities, we believe this is the best and the only course of action.
 I ask my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Bill C-89.
Ms. Karine Trudel (Jonquière, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is with indignation that I rise to speak to Bill C-89 for the resumption and continuation of postal services.
The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour claims that the government exhausted all options, but let us not forget that the government did this knowing full well that special legislation would be ready if postal workers did not bend to their employer's demands. The Minister of Labour presents this dispute as a long list of proposals by Canada Post and its employees. That is inaccurate. The one thing Canada Post did was to allow the negotiations to go on for a long time without proposing any real solutions for its employees. Thanks to the Liberals, Canada Post got what it wanted, namely back-to-work legislation under the same conditions. Incentive for negotiation and the balance of power have evaporated since employees know that they will be forced to go back to work sooner or later. 
In 2011, the Harper Conservatives imposed this same measure, which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. At the time, the Liberals condemned the very same back-to-work legislation they are now about to use. Ultimately, there is very little difference between a Liberal government and a Conservative one. Workers know that the NDP will fight for their rights every time, not just when it suits us.
There is one important point I want to raise: postal workers are not happy about going on strike. For thousands of middle-class families, striking is they only way they can maintain a position of strength vis-à-vis Canada Post. The Liberals and the Conservatives are spreading a false message when they say the strike is completely blocking mail delivery. The union chose to do rotating strikes specifically because it does not want to block mail delivery and wants to minimize the impact of strike action on small businesses.
A few days ago, Canada Post announced that it was the last chance to process the mail backlog before the avalanche of holiday packages hits. That is not true. Canada Post invented a false crisis over the mail backlog to get the government to intervene, and the government took the bait. Canada Post said that there were hundreds of mail trucks, which has since been proven to be untrue. Canada Post convinced the government that there would be no Christmas without back-to-work legislation.
People are receiving their mail and their online orders, in spite of what the Minister of Labour said. Nancy Beauchamp, a member of the CUPW bargaining committee, confirmed that at the Léo-Blanchette processing centre in Montreal, for example, there are currently no delays and no backlog of mail.
The minister also said that low-income Canadians waiting for their cheques were penalized by postal workers' rotating strikes. This is not true. The mail delivery process will not allow for the cheques to be delayed. The union chose to hold rotating strikes so as not to impact the public.
Now, the Liberals and the Conservatives are walking hand-in-hand toward a law that will undermine the constitutional right to free bargaining. The alarm that Canada Post is sounding is only as legitimate as the Liberals and Conservatives make it. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers has acted in good faith in this dispute. It proposed ideas for improvement, but Canada Post turned a deaf ear. Management refused to implement any lasting solutions to the problems pertaining to pay equity between men and women, the job insecurity of some of its employees, or the health, safety, and unpaid overtime of rural mail carriers. This was an opportunity for the Liberals to clearly show whose side they are really on. 
Rather than standing with workers and supporting free and fair bargaining, the Liberal government chose to support Canada Post management to the detriment of employees. Are the Liberals aware that forcing employees to go back to work will cause them to lose all of their leverage? The government knows that Canada Post employees have always been willing to negotiate in good faith and to quickly reach collective agreements. The Liberals could very well have ordered Canada Post to do the same by trying to negotiate in good faith with the union, but instead, the Liberals are hastening to Canada Post's rescue.
Now that Canada Post is concerned about profits and companies like eBay and Amazon are concerned about the delivery of their packages, the Liberals are imposing a return to work that would wipe out the efforts of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. This legislation would reintroduce the same working conditions. We need to reach an agreement, not vote on back-to-work legislation that will scrap all the negotiation efforts.
The government keeps saying it is in favour of negotiations, but it introduces a back-to-work bill. What is the logic behind that?
Yesterday, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour said she was confident “that we have used every tool in our tool box to get a negotiated agreement.” Is she confident? Have they really used every tool in their tool box?
Let them call the employer and tell it to sit down at the negotiating table. If Canada Post management had truly wanted to avoid a strike, then all it had to do was show up on time at the negotiating table and stop asking the government to bail it out of its bad management decisions.
That is what is happening today. What is worse is that the Liberals believe it. Does the government believe postal workers who want better protection and better working conditions? We must let negotiations continue. Rotating strikes will let the mail be delivered, which is what the union always wanted.
Now, the Liberals, including the member for Gatineau, want to convince us that we cannot wait any longer and that arbitration is the route to take. I may be naive, but I still hope that this arbitration will be transparent and fair, and that it will put employer and employees on an equal footing. However, when we take a closer look at how arbitration works, we quickly understand the government's decisions. Under arbitration, the decision-making process and the final decision are completely confidential. The union will not be able to rely on the means currently at its disposal to achieve a balance of power with Canada Post because all employees will be forced to go back to work under the deplorable conditions that I described earlier.
Things were the same for Canada Post in 2011. The union was afraid of being forced to accept a collective agreement despite arbitration and special legislation. That is why it pursued a negotiated settlement. The Harper government's back-to-work legislation imposed regressive collective agreements on postal workers. Today's back-to-work legislation is clearly infringing on workers' rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the Liberals think that has changed, they have a short memory. Need I remind them that, in 2015, the Prime Minister made it a priority to improve labour relations at Canada Post and uphold the principle of freedom to negotiate?
Let me say that back-to-work legislation for postal workers will be a very tough sell. That is why I move, seconded by the member for London—Fanshawe:
 That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “this House decline to give third reading to Bill C-89, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, because it: 
 (a) prevents the use of the constitutional right to strike, an essential part of the collective bargaining process; and 
 (b) clearly violates the rights workers have under the Charter.”. 

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The amendment is in order.
The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques on a point of order.
Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 62, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, that the member for Elmwood—Transcona be now heard, since he rose first.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
 Resuming debate, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.
Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues in the House for the opportunity to close the debate. I wish we were not closing the debate at this time, but considering that the time was allocated so severely in the motion that set the context for this debate, it is an honour to close it.
I will close it by addressing what I think was one of the principal arguments that we heard from the Liberals throughout the debate today, which is that they really had no choice and this crisis is beyond their control. What we have heard consistently throughout the debate today is that is not the case. Postal workers have been on rotating strikes, but the mail is getting delivered. In fact, in some parts of the country, there has only been a disturbance for one day out of the five weeks that Canada Post has had rotating strikes. I am sorry but that does not a crisis make.
I know there are small businesses and Canadians who want to receive their packages and the fact is that postal workers want to deliver those packages, but they do not want a circumstance where one in four of them can expect to get hurt doing it and not be able to enjoy Christmas with his or her family because he or she was injured working in unreasonable conditions that have persisted at Canada Post for a very long time now. That is what the government is asking those workers to do: to go into a workplace with the highest rate of injuries in the federal sector. We just think that is completely unacceptable and we do not believe we had to be here.
We have heard the labour minister defend this all day, and that is a shame. The person who should have been on her feet all day is the minister responsible for Canada Post, who has failed to put in management that is willing to address the real workplace issues and causing workers to get hurt, who has failed to address the mandatory overtime that is disrupting the family life of workers at Canada Post and contributing to the injury rate, and who has failed to put management in place at Canada Post that would address the real pay equity issues that exist between rural and suburban carriers and urban carriers. If we had real leadership from the minister who is actually responsible for the corporation, we could have avoided this situation.
To hear the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour talk about a crisis as if the government has no control over it is a little rich. Frankly, Liberals are asking too much of postal workers who were legislated back to work under bad terms and conditions in 2011 and have been doing their utmost to make sure that people continue to receive their mail reliably at a great cost to either themselves or their colleagues. This was an opportunity to do something about that.
We have heard a plethora of excuses from the Liberals as to why, even though they are undermining the collective bargaining rights of Canadians with back-to-work legislation, we should accept it because they got rid of Bill C-377, a major objection to which was the fact that it would reveal the contents of union strike funds to employers. The idea of getting rid of that legislation was to support union workers being able to strike and not be undermined by their employers. If the government is going to repeal that legislation with one hand and then legislate them back to work and artificially end the strike on the other hand, it amounts to the same thing: it undermines the right to collective bargaining.
We have heard about hard decisions. The fact of the matter is that governments do have to make hard decisions, but what is not true is that every time a government has to make a hard decision, workers get the short end of the stick. 
When Air Canada went to the Liberal government early in its mandate and said it wanted to get rid of the provisions that required it to have its maintenance work done in Canada because it wanted to do the work offshore, the Liberals jumped to the pump and got it done. They made sure the corporate executives at Air Canada got what they wanted. 
When big multinational companies went to the Liberals throughout the TPP negotiations—and they had an opportunity to substantially renegotiate the TPP deal—they decided to continue with the temporary worker provisions. Again we heard the Liberals say they were fixing the TFW program and making it better. Then they smuggled the provisions of that program into chapter 12 of the TPP. They could have done something for workers then, but no, they said it was time for hard decisions and sided with the big multinationals. 
They did it again with their friends on Bay Street on the CEO stock option loophole. They were lobbied dozens of times to break an election commitment. 
When that hard decision came up, what did they do? The Liberals sided with the folks on Bay Street and broke their election commitment. Workers are going to pay the price for that, and are paying the price for that, because then they are told, “I'm sorry, we don't have the money to do what we want to do.”
When it came to Netflix paying its fair share, Netflix came and lobbied. It was time for a hard decision. What decision did the Liberals make? They again sided with the large multinational so that it would not have to pay its share.
On the carbon tax, when the biggest polluters and the biggest moneymakers came to them and said they wanted a break on the carbon tax, unlike for everyone else, the Liberals granted it to them. That is the theme.
Whenever there is a hard decision, workers lose with the Liberal government. That is the problem.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  The hon. member for Hochelaga on a point of order. 
Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Madam Speaker, we have worked hard tonight, but other people have also worked hard, with us and for us. I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking the table officers, the speakership of the House, the security officers, the pages, the people who served us food and the bus drivers. Thank you very much.
Also, I think we can pick up after ourselves and clean up our own glasses and whatnot, here and in the lobbies. It is the least we can do for the people who helped us here tonight.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): I thank the member for Hochelaga for her comments.
It being 12:46 a.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
 The question is on the amendment. Shall I dispense?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): [Chair read text of amendment to the House]
 The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  In my opinion the nays have it.
 And five or more members having risen:
 Call in the members.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)
Vote #949
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): I declare the amendment defeated.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  In my opinion the yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #950
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
Hon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I move:
 That the House do now adjourn. 
(Motion agreed to)
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): It being 1:05 a.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:05 a.m.)